Responsibility To Protect - Rhetoric and Reality

Victor Allan and Mark Safranski have initiated an engaging  discussion at The Bridge and Zenpundit about Responsibility to Protect (R2P), the idea that states are responsible for protecting their populations and when they cannot protect them, the international community is obligated to assist them in an escalating manner until the desired result is achieved.  It is an important discussion to have given that the United States incorporated R2P in its 2010 National Security Strategy and the doctrine is likely to appear in the 2014 document.  Further, R2P has been consistently cited by advocates for U.S. intervention in Uganda, Sudan, Libya, Syria, and so on and thus continues to play a prominent role in U.S. foreign affairs. 

First, a brief recap of the discussion:

Victor attempts to circumvent the pesky issues regarding R2P and state sovereignty by simply redefining sovereignty.   Mark has pointed out that “Academic theorists do not have the authority to override sovereign powers (!) constituted as legitimized, recognized states and write their theories into international law,” and highlights that several members of the U.N. Security Council disagree with the interpretation of sovereignty that Victor advocates.  Mark also states that it is a straw man argument to claim that nations ever had carte blanche within their borders, at least concerning the security concerns of their neighbors, as Victor asserts.  The latest response by Victor emphasizes the lesser forms of intervention under the doctrine, focusing on an escalating level of intervention and then points out that R2P is not the product of academic theorists but was adopted by the U.N. Security Council.  He then implies that neighbor state involvement in a nation, as referenced by Mark, represents a stealth argument for R2P principles. 

I will leave aside semantic difficulties in applying R2P, like determining when violence becomes genocide, when civil war becomes ethnic cleansing or why hundreds of chemical weapon deaths is a human rights violation but tens of thousands killed by bullets or bombs is not.  I will simply point out that malleable criteria, such as those outlined in describing the doctrine, are typically chosen to allow a wider and more expansive interpretation and should be viewed as a warning sign.  

Before addressing the logic of the arguments, it is important to examine the empirical evidence.  Results are what count when evaluating a policy, not its intent.  Adoption of R2P has failed to make a significant impact on recent violence across the globe; Sudan, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Burma, and Syria all offer examples. Victor points out that “most of the 118 states that mentioned Syria at the UN General Assembly in 2012 expressed concern about the population,” but few were willing (or capable) of taking action.  Rhetoric is cheap but action requires effort and thus speaks better to true attitudes.  Despite what is said, R2P has not proven to be a desirable policy to pursue for most nations and as such has not been frequently applied, however much it is mentioned.  While R2P is certainly compassionate in its intent, it can be argued that unintended consequences from its application will cause more harm than good.  Rarely can a foreign power solve a nation’s internal problems, and usually attempts to do so only temporarily alleviate them, or make them worse. Contemporary evidence can be seen in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Libya where in each case current conditions are arguably worse than before intervention.  This is ironic as R2P was part of the pitch for intervening, or at least extending intervention, in all of these cases.  The U.S. Ambassador to the U.N., John Bolton, has noted that the intervention in Libya was conducted not to combat actual crimes against humanity, but as a preemptive measure, creating a precedent with the potential for considerable abuse.  Not only do legitimate attempts often end in failure, and at greater cost to all parties involved, but some nations have gone even further and used R2P as justification for war, without the ‘legalizing’ power of U.N. approval, as in Russia’s conflict with Georgia.  When viewed in this light, comparing the dangers created and the failures of the policy to prevent mass violence with how many crises have been actually been averted, R2P has not proven to be a successful or even a neutral doctrine, but a harmful one.  Despite claims that this is due to poor implementation or a lack thereof, the problem is not in application, it is inherent in the concept itself.   

Although Victor accuses Mark and others of misrepresenting R2P, his definition appears to be the one that is shifting.  Calling one nation’s intervention in another to secure its own interests R2P is a misnomer.  Mark cites actions that a neighbor state may take in relation to another as driven by its own security concerns, not as a result of an idealistic duty imposed to protect the citizens of its neighboring state.  In Victor’s first article, this is the same justification he uses for R2P imposing duties on the global community—the idea that internal instability can cause effects outside a nation’s borders and so justifies intervention.  His second article continues with this line of logic.  But this is simply selling intervention on the basis of national interest, rather than mandating a responsibility to intervene based on humanitarian concerns.

Also, an appeal to authority such as the U.N. is a misplaced justification.  The U.N. is not a governing body, nor is the Security Council the highest authority “on interventions, peacemaking, and peacekeeping….” as Victor asserts.  The Security Council has no authority except that which is derived from the power of its member states.  Further, what is referred to as “international law” is in reality handshake deals and custom rather than “law”.  The legality of NATO intervention in Kosovo would have been the same with or without U.N. Security Council approval, as it is not a supra-governmental organization with powers that supersede state sovereignty.  An action taken by several nations under a U.N. mandate is legally and morally no different than an action taken by several nations without such a mandate, or by one nation acting unilaterally.  Multilateral approaches have been generally preferred over unilateral ones for practical purposes and not reasons of moral justification.  When multilateralism has been the chosen course of action, it has largely been window dressing for action that is primarily in the national interests of certain member states.  Further, state sovereignty is the check on the tyranny of the majority in the international system but the U.N. operates on the assumption that consent of its members justifies violations of state sovereignty.  In this way, the U.N. derives its “authority” from mob rule.  Favoring international intimidation over national sovereignty is a precarious way to justify action.  

Additionally, when advocating for R2P, there seems to be a habit of cherry-picking which definitions to apply, rather than applying the principle universally.  According to Victor, "The question then becomes one of how best to balance the sovereignty of the state with the need to protect its populations."  Again, this seems only an issue when defining sovereignty in a Westphalian sense.  In the Deng, et al. interpretation of sovereignty cited by Victor, sovereignty is derived from the ability to protect the population hence, when there is no ability, there is no sovereignty with which to be concerned.  A practical example of the advocacy for a new interpretation of sovereignty being undermined by an attempt to honor its old definition can be seen in the arbitrary distinction between natural disaster and human-caused action.  If it is a state's responsibility to protect its people, and it cannot do so in a natural disaster, then why does this not warrant intervention?  What if people are dying from starvation and the state is unable to help?  Why does the state only bear responsibility to protect people from certain kinds of harm if sovereignty is responsibility?  Did not al-Shabaab’s inability to deal with drought that lead to the 2011 famines warrant intervention?  If not, then what about when the group prevented refugees from leaving the country, forcing them to stay and starve?   From a people-based sovereignty point of view, there is no logical distinction between death caused by a lack of ability to distribute food, an earthquake or violence by another group.  In either case, if the state cannot protect its citizenry and does not consent to help, there should be no distinction unless one was concerned about violating the sovereignty of the state in the Westphalian sense of the word.   This distinction is arbitrarily made to limit the type of open-ended commitments asked of the global community, rather than mandating what would, in reality, never be agreed to.  Another example is the emphasis on a spectrum of responses, which imply that it is wrong to violate sovereignty, unless it is done a little bit at a time.  It seems as though as much as there is an assertion of a new interpretation of sovereignty, even its proponents are acting as if this is interpretation is not the reality.

My main observation, however, is that the discussion thus far has been focused more on a "right" to protect than a "responsibility" to do so.  The arguments indicate that a state has a responsibility to protect its people but takes for granted that third parties somehow inherit this responsibility when the state cannot fulfill it.  There is a missing explanation here.  The need to justify such efforts may seem callous, but a nation’s highest moral order is to serve its own citizens first.  Such an explanation would certainly be a legitimate demand for a mother that loses a son who volunteered to defend his nation, or for a government entrusted by its people to use their resources to their own benefit.  While it is often stated that the international community "should" intervene, explanation of where this imperative comes from is not addressed other than by vague references to modern states being interconnected.  But this implies, as previously stated, a right based on the self-interest of states, firmly grounded in realistic security concerns, rather than any inherent humanitarian responsibility to intervene.

Instability and potential spillover may very well make it within a nation’s vital interests to intervene in  another country and pursuing humanitarian and human rights goals within the borders of another state may well be in a nation’s secondary interests.  But if this is the case, the calculus of the political leadership will determine if pursuing this goal is worth the cost/potential costs – as has been done in such cases as North Korea, Iran, Zimbabwe, Tibet and Syria.  In either case, the decision is determined by what is in the nation’s interests, a reality that makes R2P not a mandate, but a merely a post hoc justification for intervention.


*Title inspired by Thomas Sowell's book, "Civil Rights: Rhetoric or Reality"

The Myth of Bi-partisanship

The term “bi-partisan” in relation to policy is usually meant to imply that the policy is a good and/or reasonable one.  In reality, this is simply an appeal to consensus, a variation of the Argumentum ad populum fallacy and the Argument to moderation fallacy.  It occurs because the average citizen views the Democratic and Republican parties as opposing poles on the political spectrum.  Therefore, if the two extremes can agree, the policy must be acceptable to most along the spectrum.

Unfortunately, this view is misguided.  Contrary to conventional belief, the parties do not represent opposing poles but are merely two sides of the same coin, sharing far more similarities than differences.  When one focuses on a very narrow band of the spectrum, which is characterized by mainstream American politics, the two sides appear distant.  However, when one widens their aperture, and both parties are viewed in the context of the broader political spectrum, they are more akin to neighbors than opposite hemispheres.  The former view is perpetuated by propaganda from both sides of the aisle which reinforces the false dilemma of choosing either Republican or Democrat. 

One example is the discussion during the 2012 presidential election on the issue of contraception.  Narrow-minded voters viewed President Obama and Republican primary candidate Rick Santorum as taking completely opposing sides in the debate over contraception.  President Obama’s Affordable Care Act required all employers and insurers to cover the cost of birth control for employees while Rick Santorum favored the state’s ability to ban birth control.  Superficially, these appear to be contradictory positions: one wants to provide, one wants to deny.  But a deeper examination reveals that both want the government to make choices that belong to individuals.  Both believe that the state has the right, and duty, to make decisions about what transpires in the privacy of the bedroom.  Both are in favor of centralized state power versus individual rights, of an expanded role of the government in its citizens’ lives.  Calling their views opposing is missing the forest for the trees. 

Sadly, this point was missed by most who were content to allow the government to make decisions for themselves, and everyone else, provided the decision was in line with their own personal preferences.  This short-sighted view ignores the fact that what can be done by force to one citizen can be done to any other.  Allowing a coercive policy once because one agrees with it removes any protections available the next time, when one may not agree.  It is as though people being put to death would oblige happily so long as the executions were to be conducted with their preference of bullet or bomb. 

Republican and Democrat differences are not substantive, they are largely differences of degree or type.  An example of the former can be seen in both sides support of entitlement spending (merely differing on how much).  An example of the latter can be seen in their inconsistent definitions of freedom which are discussed here by Antony Davies.  He points out that liberals, as embodied by those in the Democratic Party, define freedom with an emphasis on social liberties while denying economic liberties.  Contrarily, mainstream conservatives, as embodied by the Republican Party, define freedom by extolling economic liberty while undervaluing civil liberties in many cases.  As Professor Davies states, “The liberal-conservative dichotomy leads us to contradictions because it encourages us not to think in terms of first principles but to think in terms of issues.”  Thomas Sowell devotes a section of his book, Intellectuals and Society, to discussing the logical problems inherent in Americans’ pragmatism when he points out the differences between attitudes, based on emotions, and principles, based on ideology.  

In evaluating politics, the most important rule one can practice is to disregard everything a politician says and pay attention only to what he or she does.  Actions speak louder than words—an adage that could not be more applicable to politics.  When the partisan rhetoric is ignored and one actually examines the policies pursued by both Republicans and Democrats, it becomes obvious that the differences between them are far fewer than the similarities (for example, here is this list of 100 such similarities).  Judge Andrew Napolitano made this point brilliantly in this broadcast, supposedly the reason his show was dropped by Fox News, when he eloquently asked, 

What if the widely perceived differences between the two parties was just an illusion? What if the heart of the government policy remains the same no matter who is in the White House?  What if those vaunted differences between Democrat and Republic were actually just minor disagreements?  What if government policies didn’t change when government leaders did?   What if no matter who won an election, government stayed the same?  What if the biggest difference between most candidates was not substance, but style?  What if those stylistic differences were packaged as substantive ones to reinforce the illusion of a difference between Democrats and Republicans?
 

But, how did we arrive at this narrow view, this mistaken assumption that the two parties are substantively different?  This view is enabled by a voter culture in which people simply accept what is fed to them without engaging in critical thinking.  But this view is predisposed by the false model of the political spectrum with which U.S. citizens have been indoctrinated.  Most voters are taught that the political spectrum has liberals on the left extreme and conservatives on the right extreme and moderates in the center.  The typical characterization looks like this:

 
 And this is the wider view of that same representation:

Unfortunately, this is a completely illogical and ideologically erroneous portrayal.  There are several egregious flaws in this contrived model:

1. It assumes that liberalism/conservatism allow less law and more freedom of choice than anarchy (a complete lack of government and law where choice is only limited by means), which is clearly a false presumption.  How can the peak of freedom be the middle ground between liberalism and conservatism when, as just demonstrated by the Santorum/Obama example, both subordinate individual rights to the state in many (most) matters?

2. It assumes that anarchy and communism are ideological neighbors despite the fact that  they share nothing in common and are functional opposites.

3. It shows fascism and communism as opposites when, in reality, both are built around state control of production with the only difference between them being ownership of production (in communism the state is the owner; in fascism the individual can own but he is controlled by the state...essentially a semantic difference). Further, Nazism is merely a racial driven form of Fascism, rather than a separate system.

4. Most importantly, the axis has no inherent value, just labels, as it is built around issues, not first principles.  The axis is rather just an expression of perceived difference between two arbitrary points (liberal and conservative).  A bubble of freedom in the middle is framed by liberals on one side and conservatives on the other with everything beyond, in either direction, being undesirable.  Slavery precariously surrounds the spectrum at both extremes as if it were two different words with two different meanings rather than the same concept. 

But, it is flawed model that is taught to constituents through formal education, the media, and by the parties themselves.  The implications of this erroneous framework are far-reaching.  On this spectrum, the sacred bubble in the middle becomes the goal.  The pinnacle of freedom is the precise midpoint between the two extremes (here again we meet our old friend the appeal to moderation).   It is this fallacy and the false construction of the political spectrum that drive our obsession with “moderates” and “bi-partisanship.”

This illogical framework is not, however, how government has been viewed for most of history.  To see the true political picture we have to create a model that actually represents reality.  So what does a more accurate representation look like?

We begin by giving meaning to the x-axis.  Many factors influence a political system so if we are limiting ourselves to just one axis, one factor of evaluation, then then it must encapsulate the most fundamental, most basic, and most influential discriminator. It must be the ‘first principle’, from which everything else flows, the factor that drives all other factors.   In evaluating political systems, this factor is the power of government over the individual.  On an axis that represents this, the left extreme would be total government control and power over the individual and on the right extreme would be zero control of the government over the individual, the lack of government, or anarchy).  We can then logically construct the graph to more accurately reflect the true political spectrum…essentially recreating how it has always been understood.  The result, the actual political spectrum, looks more like this:

This graph correctly aligns political systems in accordance with their principles relating to government power and corrects the mistakes of the first representation.    Anarchy (where there is so little government people are free to oppress each other) is on the right; totalitarianism (represented by fascism and communism - each substantively as different from one another as republicans and democrats are from each other in terms of government power) is on the left.  

But this spectrum's scale and relative distances are arbitrary;  it still assumes that the moderate view is actually a middle ground between two further extremes; it portrays liberals and conservatives as far more different than they truly are.  Therefore, it is useful to visualize the true axis but it is not much more helpful in analyzing relationships between systems.  

This last figure is a much better portrayal of the spectrum in relation to American politics.  It ties anchors from U.S. history to the spectrum to show, more accurately where practice has intersected ideology:

This spectrum accurately represents stepping back and opening the aperture to take a wider view of the spectrum than the zoomed-in perspective of American politics.  From this distance, as with anything, small differences disappear.  The Republican and Democratic parties' differences are represented vertically, as they are non-existent in terms of government power.  The "conservatism" (“neo-conservatism”) of the Republican Party, is accurately placed outside the traditional area of conservatism.  As empirical examination of the policies (rather than the rhetoric) of both demonstrates, they are much more skewed toward bigger government and more democratic ideals rather than the limited government and republican (not Republican) ideals of the Founders (who were "classical liberals" rather than modern liberals, as there was a redefinition "between 1877 and 1937...from laissez-faire constitutionalism to New Deal statism, from from classical liberalism to democratic social-welfarism").  

This figure also visually depicts the shift in America, over time, from principles of limited government towards more government power.  This shift inevitably resulted in the greater government intervention in individual roles and reduction of liberties that we are seeing today.  Jefferson warned of this shift 200 years ago, stating that “The natural progress of things is for liberty to yield and government to gain ground."  

The middle ground between the Republican and Democrat parties is, in this broad view, as insignificant as the minutia of their differences.  This middle ground, far from being the point of maximum freedom, of balance, of reason, is trapped between two artificial poles.  Here, it can be seen where it truly lies - far from the "middle point" of the spectrum and solidly to the left of center in terms of government power, as can be confirmed by polling data.  Those in the middle ground are provided by both parties with merely the illusion of choice, through the two-party system.  And bi-partisanship simply dispenses altogether with that illusion. 

If the American people desire to have real choice, then they must abandon their fascination with “the middle ground” and their toleration of “moderates.”  Those who occupy the “middle” between two basically synonymous groups are there because they have not put any effort into truly understanding either group, nor the greater system.  They are there because they are ignorant.  Those who are “undecided” are only focusing on how a policy will superficially and immediately affect them, rather than understanding the implications, the long-term effects, the 2^nd and 3^rd order consequences and the history and logic of policies.  These people are not the voice of reason; they are even more witless than the sheep who blindly repeat the party line.  The fallacious assumption that the golden mean is always right is intellectually lazy and demonstrates a complete refusal to engage in critical thinking.  

If the nation wishes to have real choice then it must, through the ballot, dispense with both mainstream parties and move to a multi-party system.  This would require not more short-sighted moderates, more dogmatic shills, or more uninformed centrists, but less of each.  Instead, the nation would need more outliers, more of those labeled “radical” and “extreme” by the mainstream parties in power who only wish to retain and increase that power.  What would be required are opposing viewpoints to both parties, not more bi-partisanship.  The playing field would have to be widened and real options given to Americans rather than the false dilemma presented between Democrats and Republicans.  Until that happens, the term “bi-partisan” will be deluding to voters.  Both mainstream parties are driving the nation like a freight train toward more government power and less freedom…and, in the face of that how we get there, in which compartment we ride, by which party, is a meaningless and insignificant question.  

In contemporary politics, when you hear the word bi-partisan it doesn’t mean you are moving toward a different destination, it simply means the train is moving faster in the direction you were already heading.